• Thehoneyman
    6

    I'm not sure that's what I meant. The universes being identical is key here because the indentical people will make the same choices because they are identical in every way down to every thought. Every contributing factor in choice making will be exactly the same in both of them. Something about these two identical universes would need an external influence to change them.

    So say before I asked them all the question I punched one of them in the face. Now that one might answer differently to the others because they are now different.
  • Thehoneyman
    6

    I have no evidence of either I'm just discussing my thoughts... On my own topic... Is that okay? :P
  • GreyScorpio
    93
    If hard determinism were true, and I am an external agent then by your standards my function would be to tell you what to believe and you would have to comply,Jeremiah

    That has no correlation. Because you are an external agent with no free will you are then able to tell people what they can and can't believe to which they must comply to? If hard determinism were true, the function of decision making doesn't then fall into the hands of a normal human being.

    Gods are fantasies created by human imagination; it is not that hard to understand.Jeremiah

    I'm not arguing on that. I agree. So I don't know where I showed a failure to understand.

    In fact I think this could be considered a counter example against the concept of hard determinism. If I push a rock it has no choice but to roll the direction I will it; however, if that rock could resist my push then that is something else.Jeremiah

    If you push a rock in a direction it moves that direction through gravity ... Without the sarcasm - There are only a limited of directions that rock can go. So how are you free to make a decision of where the rock goes. If you push it over a mountain in England, it doesn't suddenly end up in China even if were using your 'free will' to 'decide' that it would go to China after pushing of this rock in England.
  • Jeremiah
    1.1k


    You are the one that set the standard of proof. It would be nice if "philosophers" actually tried to live up to such standards, but I guess when it comes down to it that is asking a bit much of them.
  • GreyScorpio
    93
    The universes being identical is key here because the indentical people will make the same choices because they are identical in every way down to every thought.Thehoneyman

    I completely agree - I must have misunderstood you. Sorry about that. What I thought was smart was that, using the point that the parallel universes are exactly alike, we would be making the very same decision in all of these universes no matter the circumstances. This again shows a lack of understanding of 'free' because decisions are always preemptively made for us. And if the environmental circumstances were different then the nature of the decision would change which would then lead the person back to another preemptively made 'choice'. It may be that you punched the person in the face and now you have to make another decision between two decisions that would not have been the same had you not punched him in the face.
  • Jeremiah
    1.1k
    If hard determinism were true, the function of decision making doesn't then fall into the hands of a normal human being.GreyScorpio

    If determinism is true, everything is both a cause and effect, that includes humans.

    Your statement here shows how little thought you have put into this, we are very much shaped by the other humans around us.
  • GreyScorpio
    93
    Your statement here shows how little thought you have put into this, we are very much shaped by the other humans around us.Jeremiah

    Considering I am literally behind a computer trying to learn, No I haven't thought much about it. I am pretty much thinking about it as I go along as to make an educated minuet on what I have learned. Just because I don't agree with your point of view doesn't make mine incorrect.

    I also notice how you manage to tiptoe around the rest of my comment by not responding. In any case, If determinism is not true then everything would be chaos and we would be able to do the unimaginable which is why I think we are unable to comprehend what free means. Having free will is having the ability to act on one's own discretion with no factors influencing it, including the environment, Laws of physics, Laws of Humanity, Society and more... we are not free to do what we want. It is evident to me.
  • Jeremiah
    1.1k
    Let me know when you have learned enough to understand the difference between determinism and hard determinism.
  • Jeremiah
    1.1k
    Hard determinism has many flaws that should be kept in mind. It is an unfalsifiable claim, which means it should not be used as a standard for proof. It leads to infinite regression, since it states everything is the result of cause and effect.

    However, I think the biggest error is the lack of defined systems, hard determinism precives all of existence as one system, which may be true but at the same time it leaves no account for local systems and their role. If everything is cause and effect then so is the human system, so why would we not consider the influence of the human themselves? They certainly have a role in all of this.

    So I find the whole arumgent of hard determinism full of holes, unconvincing and just an inadequate explanation.
  • Jeremiah
    1.1k
    A bit of a side note, but I find it hypocrital how many non-believers reject God due to lack of evidence, but eagerly accept hard determinism even though it suffers from the same lack of evidence. Seems like selective skepticism to me.
  • Marcus de Brun
    264
    Schopenhauer and others have already proven the absence of 'free will'

    The problem is that philosophy and individuals remain afraid to take ownership of the inevitable consequence. For example they might have to give up the cherished notion of the god of heaven and the god of self. Empty refutation of hard determinism will persist as long as the Gods of heaven and self continue to be adored.

    Quantum mechanics and special relativity have provided the formal proof but are equally afraid of the consequence.

    To put it simply free will necessitates the linear evolution of time. The future cannot be fixed or already in existence because it is created by our free will. However special relativity insists that temporal shift occurs on the basis of relative velocity. This has been conclusively proven experimentally, by placing synchronized clocks upon planes.

    If time travel is possible and has been proven possible, if one can effectively travel into the future... The future must pre-exist if one might travel into it. If the future is already in existence there can be no such thing as freedom of the will.

    M
  • Rank Amateur
    123
    Irrespective of the very good arguments of hard determinism, I, and I think most have the sensation of free will. When I stare at the ice cream in the freezer, I feel i am making an independent choice to have it or not. So is this sensation of choice a valid argument that free will does exist, however it can only be known by experience, and is not able to be known by analysis, investigation or reason. Is it a Qualia?

    In the famous thought experiment, a person spends their entire life in a black and white room, with a black and white monitor. She spends her entire existence learning all there is to know about color. How the eye and optic system operate, wave lengths etc. She analytically and theoretically knows everything that can be known about color. Then they let her out of the room into a beautiful sunset - and she says "wow"? And is amazed. Did she learn anything new? I think yes. I think the experience of color is a different thing than the analysis of color. I feel the same about the sensation of choice.
  • GreyScorpio
    93
    As I said you have your opinion and you evidently can't get over the fact that other people have opinions that differ from yours.
  • Marcus de Brun
    264


    You can have opinions and feelings about the form of reality. But in the approach to truth science has always had a more definitive insight than simple and all too often self serving 'feelings'

    I like feelings I have loads but I rarely allow them to dictate over facts.

    If and when I do, l must have reasons for doing so.

    M
  • GreyScorpio
    93
    Also, I feel as though free will is just as unfalsifiable as determinism from the points I had raised earlier. Free will is just as 'cause and effect' as determinisim. As I explained before, my view is that we cannot comprehend what 'free' truly is and as a result we also cannot comprehend 'free will'. There is no evidence for it therefore it is unfalsifiable and is meaningless. There is more physical evidence for hard determinism than there is free will. You didn't choose how your cells were aligned to create a human body. You didn't will your existence or anyone else's existence. Hard determinism states causes of our behaviour and personality, genetic makeup, and essentially how we came to be. These are decisions already made for us evidently. We do not know what free is in my opinion.
  • GreyScorpio
    93
    I agree, Logical evidence and physical evidence are the best thing we have to go one right now. It is how we develop most theories about the world and existence itself.
  • Rank Amateur
    123
    a quilia is more than just "a feeling" , the concept is, there are things than can not be known by analysis, study, or science. They can only be known by experiencing them. Quilias, if you believe they exist, are facts. You can try describe blue, by some scientific explanations of wave lengths, but does it truly describe the experience of seeing blue ? I do not think so, and that experience of blue is factual.
  • Jeremiah
    1.1k
    You can choose to respond to this post or not. That much should be self evident, which is intersubjectivally verifiable.
  • Jeremiah
    1.1k


    Seems like you made a choice to me.

    We make choices all the time, some we make on the spot while others we take time to think about. That much should not be in dispute. In fact when we take time to study the various possible outcomes of our choices, new options may even arise for us to choose from. Options that we would have not considered before, but are now possible paths because we decided to invest more time in making our decisions. This seems a bit more involved than you are giving it credit for.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.